Conservative Wiki:The Congressional Brief/Issues/1
Recent Discussion * is looking for ideas for a new usergroup name. * Will Obama try harder to help Americans now that he is re-elected? For more discussions check out the Spin Room Announcements * The Congressional Brief releases its first issue! News Highlights * Unrest in Israel as tensions grow between Hamas * Director of the CIA General Patreaus resigns in light of his extramarital affair * The Benghazi hearings are in full swing in Congress Hello, and welcome to the first edtition of Conservative Wiki's new newsletter, The Congressional Brief. I'm and I'm one of the editors for our wiki's new newsletter. Here at The Congressional Brief, our goal is to. . . *Inform users of ongoing discussions, and articles needing improvement *Provide users with a quick summary of the latest political headlines in the past two weeks, e.g. user rights changes, major community decisions, discussion results *Keep users updated with the latest news, community activities, etc The CB ''is here to help you feel more at home on Conservative Wiki. It features articles written by our own users. Any one is welcome to contribute. If you have an idea for an article please contact one of the editors listed on our main page. Every issue of the ''CB ''will feature a General Information tab, an Urban Dictionary, and at least 4 articles written by our fellow users. This issue our Feature Article is '''2016 Republican Nominees '''written by fellow editor . As we all know President Obama won the Presidency once again. However that doesn't mean that there is a new age of Democrat reign ahead of us. We all learn from our mistakes, and so has the Republican party. Now we must take the four years ahead of us, and single out our next prime candidate for the presidency. Henry has written a wonderful article on who that candidate could be, and how they could change America for the better. Enjoy, As you all know, President Barack Obama has been re-elected as President of the United States. And, like many of you out there, I am devastated by this fact. I bet what I am wondering is what plenty of other Conservatives are wondering as well: How in the world did this man possibly get reelected after the last four years have been a disaster? Well, here is my take on it. "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." These are the words of former President John F. Kennedy. The results of the election on November 6th basically said that this is the exact opposite mentality of about half of the American people today. They do not want to work, rather, they want the government to give them welfare checks, food stamps, and loads of free stuff, and under President Obama, they are going to get it. Many people have already gotten tons of free stuff in the last four years thanks to the Food Stamp President. The people obviously want to know what their country can do for them. It is sad that this many people are like this, but sadly, it is the truth. Another factor in this is the blatantly obvious fact that too many American citizens are uninformed. Many, many American people today simply do not care about politics. What do they prefer? Jersey Shore, South Park, The X Factor, Desperate Housewives, 2 Chainz concerts, pop radio, just to name a few. Now, all of these things are fine in moderation, meaning, if people were to enjoy all of these things and still pay attention to politics, that would be fine, as they would still be informed. However, nowadays, it is no longer 'cool' to pay attention to politics. Politics is apparantly 'boring'. This, in no way, shape, or form, makes it okay to not pay attention to things such as what the two people running for President of our country believe in. People just listen to the spin that they hear from their friends or on their Twitters and assume that all of it is true. If the American people paid attention, they would know about Obamacare's true purpose, the fact that the President has raised more debt than all of his predecessors combined, how he contradiced everything he said in the 2008 Democratic primary, that there are 47 million people on food stamps, the fact that he supports Planned Parenthood, the fact that he supports redistribution of wealth, and that he is covering up the situation in Benghazi, Libya. Take it from a guy who constantly sees people who don't have any clue as to what is going on, yet support Obama pasionately for no reason whatsoever, this is a bad situation and is another reason why Obama was reelected. The third factor in this is the fact that the Democratic Party has been successful in demonizing the Republican Party, as well as Mitt Romney. It is no longer 'cool' to be a Republican, because they are the racist, women-hating, greedy, old, outdated, evil party. That is what the Democratic Party has successfully shoved down the American people's throats, casuing them to believe all of the lies about Mitt Romney and the Republican Party are true. For example, the so-called 'War on Women' was created by the Democrats as an attempt to convince Women the Republicans hate them. President Obama is using all of this in his favor, and unless the Republican Party regroups and comes up with a way to turn around these bogus falsehoods, the American people will continue to vote for people like Obama and believe what they hear. The last factor was something that really hits close to home for me: Media bias. The media is almost completely biased, with the exception of FOX News and several newspapers out there. It seems no matter where you turn these days, you see programs on major news networks spouting off Liberal talking points and shamelessly criticising Republicans -- having no interest in being fair and balanced. This was a huge factor in Obama's reelection. With the media gunning for Mitt Romney, many people believed the falsehoods they heard from these networks. Now, I don't want to get into the subject of media bias too much, because I will be writing an article on that next time, in which I will fully address the issue. It is a tragedy, I know, and if we continue on the current path we are on, we will eventually end up like Greece, Spain, and several other European countries on this same path. And if all hell breaks loose, we will look back on this and realize why. | rowspan="1" style="padding-left:8px; vertical-align:top;" | I'm disappointed, and I bet all of you are disappointed, too, with what happened on Tuesday, November 6th. Actually, disappointed is an understatement for me. I'm distraught. But as Republicans, we have to keep our heads held high and power through, only to hope for the best at the 2016 Presidential Election. That's where this conversation comes in. Recently, as I was sitting around the dinner table with my brother, parents, and a few of his friends, we were talking about politics. One of the friends raised a fair point that I agree with for the 2016 Presidential Election; the GOP needs to nominate Condoleezza Rice and Marco Rubio for President and Vice President. If you don't know, Condoleezza Rice was Secretary of State under George W. Bush from 2000-2008. Rice was also the National Security Advisor. She is a member of the Republican Party (duh) and she is an African American woman. She speaks five different languages, and Rice is a professor at Stanford University in California. She is a very adept pianist, and has even played with Yo-Yo Ma. Condoleezza Obviously, she is a very well educated woman with lots of potential to do great things. Marco Rubio is a former House of Representatives representative and a current Senator of Florida. Rubio is a lawyer and a politician. He was elected into the house at age 28 and as stayed with politics ever since. When he ran, he received 48.9% of the vote, the rest being divided among three other parties. He was also considered by Mitt Romney to be his running mate, but ultimately, Paul Ryan was chosen over him. But I think he can get a second chance to be a running mate. So, we have Condoleezza Rice, a fantastic woman who is well-rounded individual, and Marco Rubio, a young Senator, who has also been Florida rep and Speaker of the House for Florida. Two amazing people who could change the tide of our country and save it from the enormities of Obama. Think about it. Condoleezza Rice could possibly the first woman to ever become President, and hopefully it'll happen. This means the women's vote will be behind her because of her feminism. Not only that, but she'd have the African American vote, too. Marco Rubio is Cuban American, which would give him the support of many Cuban Americans and Latinos. Rice also speaks five languages, which would make her a popular figure among immigrants from other countries who are now citizens. She could hold rallies in some of those different languages. The USA is a mixing pot, and all from foreign countries would adore her, even if she didn't speak their language. So, this sums up my opinion of who the Grande Olde Party should nominate for their Presidential nominees as soon as Hussein is thrown, sorry, has completed his second term. These two candidates could revive the Republican Party, which, honestly, has declined ''alot recently. I think Condoleezza Rice and Marco Rubio would win in a landslide. |- | rowspan="1" style="width:50%; padding-left:8px; border-top:1px dashed #8B4513; vertical-align:top;" | The elections on November 6 were a huge blow to Senate Republicans, and come January we'll have far-left extremists like Elizabeth Warren storming Washington. However, there's one Senator-elect that seems different than the rest. There's something hopeful about her, something special. I am referring to North Dakota's next Senator, Heidi Heitkamp. The first sign that Mrs. Heitkamp isn't like the others in her party is that as attorney general, she fought drug use hard and successfully reduced both marijuana and tobacco problems in her state. Also, unlike her leftist colleagues, she has serious business experience. Since 2001, she was the director of a plant at Dakota Gasification Company, which creates synthetic natural gas as an alternative energy and employs hundreds of people. She ran for Senate as a moderate, but I believe she actually may lean more towards the right than anything! Get this: she promotes cutting spending as the best path to balancing the budget, even running ads that call for a balanced budget amendment. She also strongly favors gun rights, declaring them a North Dakota value. She believes in local authorities, stating that they're the ones best for putting away sexual offenders. She opposed a North Dakota law that would have centralized control of education in Bismark rather than giving authority to local principalities. This may suggest that she might oppose some actions of the federal Department of Education. I already stated that she's experienced with energy, and it's even better news that she supports the Keystone XL pipeline! It gets better. For a Democrat, she's pretty hostile towards Obamacare, saying that much of it needs reform. Still, she clearly favors the law in general. The fact that she opposes the repeal of Obamacare may be the only reason she can call herself a Democrat, really. She's said that gay marriage is a state issue an her position on abortion is unknown but it is speculated that she may be pro life. Her ads focus on one thing: putting parties aside to fight for her kids' future. So the question remains... do we have a Democratic mama grizzly on our hands? |} Today, I had the pleasure of interviewing one our new administrators, ! Hey Grizzly! It's Omashu Rocks here with some questions for the new Congressional Brief. (No response) So, how does it feel to be an official admin of Conservative Wiki? I'm not entirely sure I've earned it, but I'll definitely live up to the expectations of a great administrator. It's more responsibility than I thought, monitoring edits and striving to improve our articles. I feel as though us two and Sokka jr will make an excellent team in the upcoming months. What will be your main focus on the wiki from here on out? If this isn't obvious already, I plan to make pages for as many mama grizzlies as possible. I'll start with Nikki Haley, and then Kelly Ayotte. After those two I'll probably move on to some lesser-known Conservative women. My other goal is to see a reduction of "liberalness" on this wiki. Personally, I'm not too happy with all of the anti-Republican comments I see sometimes. Your profile picture was originally Sarah Palin, then Ann Romney, and it's now Nikki Haley. What made you choose the South Carolina governor? Well you put up quite the argument for Nikki on one of my blogs. As you said, she's a champion union-buster who knows what it's like to get bullied by the left. Did you know that some union members in her state gathered in a park with a pinata that had a picture of her face on it and beat it with a baseball bat? The way she kept going with her battle against big-governvment Liberals after that really impressed me. You currently are raising three children, with another on the way… (goes to check… February 12 plus 9 months… holy $%&@! Today??? Indeed, I'm 9 months pregnant on the dot! My child isn't expected for a week or so. The expectancy for a child isn't 9 months exactly, it's 9 months plus one week (I think). Obviously, our wiki is feeling a bit down after the elections on Tuesday. What are your personal thoughts? It's disappointing, isn't it? It's pretty rough to put your heart and soul into defeating President Obama, watching every debate from the first primary event in Greensville, South Carolina to the final debate between Romney and Obama, to make phone call after phone call, to watch ad after ad, all to have your guy lose. It's a huge letdown. Do you think the Republican Party will recover? Yes. This isn't the worst thing that's happened to the GOP. There have been longer periods of time without a Republican president than eight years, and I'm confident that we will win in 2016. That is, we will win if there's a mama grizzly on the ticket. Between those retiring and those who have been defeated, the Republicans will lose seven women in the House. With the fake "War on Women" raging on, will the GOP have a bigger gender problem than before? It seems that way, sadly. It would have helped if Mia Love won her race. She would have been the first black female Republican in Congress. Looks like we're losing the contraception battle, and the HHS is now free to mandate whatever the heck they want on Catholic institutions. We'll have four more years of government-supported abortion. So yes, it looks like Liberals have the upper-hand in these so-called women's issues. I do believe, however, that women can speak and think for themselves. They aren't shallow enough to look at which party has more women and support them. Thanks so much for taking the time to answer all of my questions! It was no problem at all, Omashu Rocks | style="padding-left:8px; vertical-align:top;" rowspan="1" | Going around Conservative Wiki, it looks like there are a good number of us who are white high school students. Well guess what? If the college application system stays the same, all of us in that boat are going to have a hard time? Why? Because thanks to affirmative action, racial minorities (especially Native Americans) are given an edge based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character! That doesn't sound like something Dr. King would want, does it? You see, colleges like to have a good healthy dose of "diversity." And what better way to have diversity than by forcing it through an unfair judging of applicants? These schools feel compelled to do so because, for some unknown reason, their classes must have the correct amount of diversity, how one would determine that is beyond me. One of their principle arguments is that the working world is diverse so, you know, better get the kids used to it by denying hard workers. In the working world, are racial minorities hired over white Americans who may happen to be better candidates? In many places yes, but what message does that send to those of ethnicity who got a job on their own merit? "Well, that's great that you got a job, Steve! Just remember that it's entirely possible you only got in because your Hispanic!" What a great feeling! Isn't "diversity" wonderful? This brings me to another point that I touched on earlier. If colleges want to keep their classes in the right range of diversity, who's to say just how much diversity is right? When one enrolls in a class, they don't check a box for their race, so how do colleges even know how many minorities have enrolled in which classes? Do they send around a man in a suit to count the number of Black kids in class, then determine if it's enough black kids? Do him and all the other men in suits meet up to discuss which black kids from one class should be moved to another class that doesn't have enough? Because, of course, the classes must be perfectly diverse for the students to be in comfortable learning environment. Where's the line drawn as to what percentage of a racial minority has to be in order to check a certain box? "Well I happen to be 1/64 Asian and there's a 0.0002% possibility that I'm related to Genghis Khan, so University here I come!" Does a college send an inspector to your house to make sure that you're really a minority, or do you walk through a scanner on your first day of classes that electro-shocks if you if you're really white? I honestly cannot comprehend this argument that for a learning environment to best suit for the students, it must be as diverse as the all-knowing diversity-measurer says it must. What if my university is full of white supremacists who are violent towards minorities. It would actually be for the well-being of the students to purposefully deny applicants of color, wouldn't it? Is that okay? A case was recently brought to the Supreme Court called Fisher v. University of Texas that might not only end UT's affirmative action program, but all affirmative action across our country! Justice Kagen has recused herself, and it looks like the vote will be 5-3 in favor of real justice! |- | style="padding-left:8px; vertical-align:top; border-top:1px dashed #8B4513" rowspan="1" | Donkey Discombobulation A syndrome many on this wiki experience. It is one in which the recipient feels quite discombobulated as to why a Liberal is contributing so much to a wiki for Conservatives. "Hey, you know that A3 over there?" "You mean the Donkey?""Yeah. Why is he contributing so much, if he is a Donkey?""Ah, you have caught '''Donkey Discombobulation', my friend. Nobody really knows why. Ask AAA yourself?""Nah, I'm good."'' Grizzly Mode The state of ferociousness Mama Grizzly enters when she sees a Liberal comment on one of our articles. Did you just post a Liberal comment on conservative wiki?'Yeah, I'm still allowed to contribute here.'Well you better be careful, Mama Grizzly might go into '''Grizzly Mode '''on you. |} After reading the first issue of The Congressional Brief, we want to know your opinion. Do you think that we should keep releasing issues? Of course! I guess Not sure No